Blaise Pascal, famous big time French math wizard (and inventor of the calculator)insisted that religion is basically the ultimate advantage play. Pascal theorized that because no one knows for sure if there's a God, or an afterlife, we humans are getting far better odds by living as if he/she does exist and will eventually judge us. When we cash in for the final time, if there is no God, no harm no foul --- we've eased the lives of those around us and decreased the world's asshole population significantly. If there is a God, living by his rules keeps us out of hell. Sacre bleu!
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Frank" <frank@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Frank wrote: I'm not trying to say there isn't a God>>
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Cogno Scienti <cognoscienti@> wrote: Why not? You're not doing anyone any favors by pretending superstitions are reality. We're almost at the tipping point. Why not add your voice?
> Cogno
> ______________________________________________
>
> Well if it was an outstanding question contest, you might just have one it. Answers:
>
> 1. I'd like to keep to vpFREE's rules about no religious topics.
>
> 2. This story is not negative on religion, it just happens to be about some guys I went to church with. The point of this story and my current contest is to show how people can missatribute causal relationships, which is perfect for vpFREE and very applicable to gambling.
>
> 3. I do want to add my voice to humanity's knowledge, I simply choose not to do that be contradicting peoples beliefs.
>
> 4. Discussions are rarely won by contradicting people. To really change opinions, people must find common ground on things they agree, and then allow others to come to their own conclusions on the points where they disagree. Sometimes, this even results in one changing ones own beliefs. It is the difference between discussion and argument.
>
> 5. The story is a direct excerpt from my book, which was intentionally written to be religiously neutral. It was actually very hard to write a book about gambling, including the concepts of randomness and probability and not make it sound like the book was bashing religion. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY BELIEFS! It's just history. Religion has come into direct conflict with probability math so many times throughout the ages it's impossible to write about it and not sound anti-religious. The first westerner that wrote about probability was burned at the stake and the second was put under house arrest...and this was for publishing such controversial stuff as some equations, and saying, "Hay, some things might just happen randomly". So to counterbalance this dark history, and make my book more accessible to people of faith, I was careful to offer their side of the story, and make sure people didn't blame "god" for things that people did.
>
> 6. I saw, and see no point in writing things to contradict religious beliefs that only an atheist would read. Oddly, that would be "preaching to the choir".
>
> 7. And finally, I know from personal experience how important and powerful beliefs can be, regardless of their veracity. It is the choice between being right, or being happy. I can only make that decision for myself. And I can not find it in my heart to begrudge someone for believing anything that makes them happy.
>
> Anyway...I hope that explains my attitude toward religious topics, and why I agree with vpFREE's policy of not talking about them.
>
> Now lets get back on track talking about MIS-ATTRIBUTION OF CAUSAL RELATIONSHIPS. Obviously any example one gives of this will be about someone, or group of people that erred. It should be irrelevant to the discussion if they happen to of a particular faith or not. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A SPECIFIC HUMAN ERROR IN COGNITION HERE.
>
> ~FK
>
